Tag: free speech

Categories
All in the Mind Power Dynamics War Crimes

Parallel Narratives

In an age of high-tech deceit

On almost the same day as Israeli military forces attacked Lebanon and destroyed the 14th century Great Mosque of Khan Younis in Gaza, a knifeman attacked 14 young revellers, killing at least 3, at a Christian festival, celebrating ethnic diversity, in the West German town of Solingen. Within 24 hours it emerged the perpetrator was a 17-year-old asylum seeker who pledged allegiance to ISIS and sought revenge for the German government’s complicity in Israeli war crimes.

The total civilian death toll since 7th October 2023 now exceeds 40,000 and some estimates show that collateral damage to essential infrastructure may have caused 160,000 more deaths. In a parallel timeline, Hamas fighters broke through Israeli defences and killed 1139 military personnel and civilians and took over 100 hostages. Ever since there have been regular protests across the Western world against Israeli war crimes, with reports of attacks against Jewish communities such as the recent firebombing of a synagogue in the Southern French seaside town of La Grande Motte.

This comes only three weeks after riots following the stabbing of 11 young girls, with 3 fatalities, in Southport. Online rumours, labelled misinformation, circulated that the perpetrator was a Muslim asylum seeker, leading some angry local residents to protest outside the nearest mosque. It turns out the perpetrator grew up in Cardiff with Rwandan parents. The official narrative suggests he suffered from a mental illness. Sir Keir Starmer’s administration reacted by clamping down on the alleged far-right with a special focus on social media posts that may incite hatred. It turns out rumours about the Southport killer being a Muslim asylum seeker that spread from the Channel3Now network did not emanate, as initially reported on the BBC and Sky TV, from Russian sources or far-right organisations. The claim actually came from a Pakistani Web developer, Farhan Asi, whose motives may well have been to trigger revenge attacks in the full knowledge that the police would blame anti-Islam protesters. It’s not inconceivable that said operative could have been working for the British secret services, as I doubt normal Pakistanis, many with relatives in the UK, would want to see internecine warfare or more police repression. Western governments are quite happy to play a game of bait and switch between rival ethno-religious groups. The German government has recently arrested the publisher of the right-leaning Compact magazine for publishing official crime statistics as it may incite hatred against new ethnic minorities, while also apprehending leftwing activists, with many from new immigrant communities, for protesting peacefully against Israeli war crimes, under the pretext of antisemitism.

We now have four parallel narratives to explain the breakdown in peaceful coexistence:

  • Extreme right-wingers are spreading misinformation to destabilise society.
  • Radical Islamists want to eradicate infidels and destroy Judeo-Christianity.
  • Israel, along with the Western ruling elites, wants to eradicate Palestinians and subjugate Muslims worldwide.
  • We have an urgent mental health crisis among young males.

All narratives lead us in the same direction, towards a more tightly controlled and militarised society with more advanced surveillance, social engineering and censorship. Of course, the mainstream media is the prime source of fake news and the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is much more nuanced than just a straight battle between good and evil and must be viewed in the wider context of the growing concentration of power in Big Tech.

The last narrative may often seem a convenient cover for more sinister motives, but may also empower the state to expand its surveillance grid to every aspect of your private life. We could soon be required to carry a digital health app on our mobile device. Such a device may be as small as wristwatch or even just an embedded microchip. It could contain data not only of genuine medical conditions or vaccines, but also of any mental health conditions and required treatment. Ingestible sensor technology already exists to track your compliance with medication regimes. The spectre of kitchen-knife-wielding maniacs approaching children’s playgrounds could justify the installation of embedded microchip access control (EMAC) systems around all public spaces, either denying access to non-compliant individuals or immediately alerting the police of their presence. While many may welcome such measures to protect children against predators, administrations can abuse such innovations not only to limit medical freedom and privacy, but to track dissidents. Imagine not being allowed to enter your local pub or café because you have not taken your neuroleptic meds to suppress politically incorrect thoughts. This is no longer science fiction.

It hardly matters if some groups fear far-right racists, while others fear Muslim fundamentalists, Zionists, rabid antisemites or psychiatric patients on the loose. Whichever version of reality you choose to believe, more technocracy will be the solution. Once you’re trapped in the digital surveillance grid, your personal worldview is inconsequential to the powers-that-be, a mere character trait that may need medical attention.

Categories
Power Dynamics

The Establishment wins again

What a big surprise. The blob has engineered another colour revolution. Nominally the leader of the blue team, Rishi Sunak, conceded defeat to the leader of the Red Team, the charmless Sir Keir Starmer of Davos. If you only watched the BBC, ITV or Sky News you might be forgiven for thinking Starmer had been swept into 10 Downing Street by a whirlwind of popular discontent with fourteen years of Tory mismanagement. Now at long last, we’d have a caring government in power that would reverse the austerity the nasty Tories imposed on us. Once again Britain would welcome newcomers from around the globe with open arms, as the country realigns itself with the European Union, builds a high-tech green utopia and joins NATO’s progressive forces in their battle to spread the joys of drag queen story time to Eastern Ukraine. No sooner had Sir Keir settled into his prime-ministerial home than he elevated lockdown king and former head of research at GlaxoSmithKline, Sir Patrick Vallance, to the House of Lords and then gave him a cabinet post as Minister for Science, Innovation and Technology. By sheer coincidence, last year Sir Paddy Vallance had accepted a role with the Tony Blair Institute.

Yet despite favourable media coverage and a massive online advertising campaign, Labour failed to win over many hearts and minds, except as fallout from widespread disillusionment with the SNP in Scotland and with the Tories in England. Only a couple of months ago, Sir Keir Starmer’s Party was riding as high as 46% in the opinion polls. Yet in the event, only 59.9% could be bothered to vote, including postal votes, and only 33.7% of those supported an official Labour candidate. Indeed under Sir Keir Starmer, Labour got fewer votes than it did in 2019 under Corbyn and yet it won more than twice as many seats owing to the distortions of the First Past the Post system.

YearPopular votes% of voters% turnout% of electorsSeats
199713,518,16743.271.330.8418
200110,724,95340.759.424.2412
20059,552,37635.261.421.6355
20108,609,51729.065.118.9258
20159,347,32430.466.420.2232
201712,877,91840.068.827.5262
201910,269,05132.167.321.6202
20249,704,65533.759.920.2411

If we drill down, a different picture emerges. Labour only gained in two areas. In Scotland as former Labour voters return to the fold after lending their votes to the SNP over the last decade. Central belt voters have distrusted the Tories since the Thatcher era. The Scottish protest vote went largely to Reform despite its association with British Unionism. The SNP got only 9 seats with 30% of the vote, while Labour won 37 out of 57 seats with only 35.3% of the vote. In the southern English shires Labour’s share increased marginally helping it to unseat many Tory MPs with as little as 26.48% of the vote as the remainder was so even split among the Conservatives, Reform and independents. Labour only regained its traditional Red Wall seats because many who lent their votes temporarily to the Tories to get Brexit done either stayed at home or voted Reform. Indeed, Reform did best in some of the most economically deprived areas of Eastern and Northern England.

One of the biggest surprises came from the cosmopolitan urban constituencies with large Muslim populations. This is where Labour did best under Jeremy Corbyn. Although George Galloway lost in Rochdale, five independent candidates won on a Pro-Palestine ticket. In Luton South, Labour’s share declined from 51.8% to 35.4% shedding votes to an independent and a Workers’ Party candidate with 14 and 8.1% respectively and both standing on a pro-Palestine ticket. Sir Keir Starmer himself lost around 18.9% to Andrew Feinstein and the former Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, won as an independent.

If we had proportional representation or even a French-style two round contest, the outcome would have been very different. Labour won with 40% or less in 122 constituencies and in 175 constituencies the combined Conservative and Reform vote share would have beaten the winner, but to be fair we may have to add the LibDem votes to Labour’s.

However, this assumes the traditional left-right paradigm that places Reform on right and the Worker’s Party on the left. A more honest appraisal would be rank parties by the social class of their supporters. The Conservatives may still have a bedrock of support from affluent boomers in their 60s and Labour still do better in urban areas among the managerial classes, but the Greens and LibDems did best either in posh neighbourhoods or places with large student or post-graduate populations. A top-to-bottom spectrum might look more like this:

LibDems and GreensTrendy upper middle classes, students and business leaders
LabourBillionaire bankers, media moguls, conformist managerial classes, social workers and some welfare-dependents often via postal votes
ConservativesConformist suburban, rural middle classes and property traders
Workers’ Party & IndependentsRebellious working classes and some small business owners
ReformRebellious working classes and some maverick business leaders

When it comes to transferring more power to remote technocrats at the World Health Organisation, rejoining the EU, transgenderism in primary schools, clamping down on free speech, raising green taxes on the lower middle classes or going to war with Russia, another pattern emerges. Upper middle-class Labour,  LibDem and Green supporters are much more likely to support these policies, while Reform and Workers’ Party supporters are more likely to oppose them. Only on Israel and mass migration do we see distinctive tribal loyalties come to the fore among Britain’s disparate lower classes and only on Israeli war crimes do the Greens still take a firm stance against the Military Industrial Complex.

By now it should be crystal clear that there is no grassroots support for extreme centralisers who have embedded themselves in the UK government with the full blessing of the Tony Blair Institute.

Categories
All in the Mind Power Dynamics War Crimes

Our Rulers Want War

Last month, the world’s movers and shakers met up in the Swiss ski resort of Davos. Nominally elected politicians posed with billionaire technocrats and functionaries of unaccountable global organisations like the WHO to discuss how to manage the restless plebs. Hot on their agenda, besides climate change, future pandemics and universal digital ID, was the perceived threat of disinformation, misinformation and malinformation. The last neologism is particularly ominous. They are not only concerned with information that may be factually incorrect, but with indisputable facts which, if disseminated, would incriminate them. Information must now not just be manipulated, but actively suppressed for the greater good of the elite’s long-term plans for humanity.

While the UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, shared the stage with Pfizer CEO, Albert Bourla, and, without a hint of irony, welcomed the prospect of rolling out a mass injection campaigns within 100 days of the next pandemic, his colleague, Grant Shapps posing as Secretary of State for Defence, made a high-profile speech to prepare us for war with Eurasia. A week later General Sir Richard Shirreff appears on British TV screens to advocate conscription in the build-up to a military conflict with Russia allegedly to defend freedom and democracy.

How can these professional charlatans, who have both on numerous occasions revealed their ignorance on basic science and geopolitics, claim to represent the hapless citizens of the United Kingdom? Who voted to impose medical martial law and digital IDs or to wage war with Russia, Iran and/or China when our armed forces can barely defend our borders? Did we not vote to take back control? How does bombing Houthi rebels in Yemen solve any of the practical challenges we have at home? Do our political speech writers think we all suffer from collective amnesia? Have we somehow forgotten that the UK not only armed Saudi Arabia to the hilt, but the RAF helped train its pilots as they launched airstrikes over Northern Yemen? Why on earth would Houthi rebels be disrupting shipping in Red Sea as Israel flattens Gaza?

In the same week the Indian multinational, Tata Steel, announced it would close the blast furnaces in Wales, as government and opposition politicians prioritise their Net Zero agenda. Did it occur to anyone that we will need an awful lot of steel and aluminium not only to build new energy infrastructure but to fight all the wars our rulers want to pursue.

The days of US military supremacy are over. What happened to the promises of a joint NATO-Ukrainian victory over the Eastern invaders? How could Russia win if its economy is supposedly a basket case economy and its military budget only a tenth of the USA’s mighty $800 outlay? In reality, the Russian bear is only weak if we measure its power in American greenbacks. In terms of raw materials, it’s the richest country in the world with a manufacturing base now larger than France’s and a highly skilled workforce. Western sanctions have barely affected Russia as it deepens its alliances with China, India, Iran and many resource-rich African countries. What we’re witnessing is much more complex than an eastward shift in the economic centre of gravity or a transition to a multipolar world order dominated by China. Many analysts mistakenly assume the western wing of the Military-Biotech Industrial Complex wants to defeat its eastern wing. American tech giants depend on the East Asian manufacturing base. Where do you think all the servers, laptops and mobile phones we need to power the Fourth Industrial Revolution are made? If they’re not assembled in China itself, chances are they’re made in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea or Vietnam, all within China’s orbit. Re-localising manufacturing to Western Europe requires plentiful cheap energy, which is now in shorter supply. Europe’s industrial powerhouse, Germany, has had to absorb a double whammy, with the destructions of Nordstream II gas pipeline depriving it of cheap Russian gas and its government’s ideological pursuit of Net Zero policies. Germany even decommissioned its last nuclear reactors in May 2023. You need a hell of a lot of wind turbines and solar panels to power a car manufacturing plant. Unsurprisingly major manufacturers are now relocating to regions with lower energy costs. With highly automated production lines, skilled labour is less of an issue these days.

Now it appears the collective West, as some call NATO and its partners, has abandoned Ukraine to refocus its attention on securing trading routes in the Middle East. Yet Colonel Douglas MacGregor not only foresaw a Russian victory over Ukraine, he’s now predicting the humiliation of the Israeli government and its closest allies, leading sooner or later to WW3 with catastrophic consequences for millions of Europeans accustomed to the relative safety that followed the end of WW2. Amidst all turmoil, governments at loggerheads over the Ukrainian or Palestinian questions, are working almost in lockstep to trap their citizens into a digital control grid. The freest countries in the coming decades may well be those with incompetent governments, shoddy infrastructure and non-compliant citizens not dependent on the central banking system and able to fend for themselves without state handouts or NGO intervention. Adversity builds resilience and cosiness builds helplessness. Many Africans may live in ramshackle huts, but they have learned how to cope in the event of power cuts. By contrast most Europeans would be helpless without emergency generators kicking into action within hours of a power outage. When downtown Auckland (New Zealand) experienced a power failure in February 1998, most of the district’s 6000 inhabitants had to find alternative accommodation and city workers either worked from home or from relocated offices. Residents averted catastrophe only because people could easily move to well-provisioned surrounding neighbourhoods and emergency services acted promptly to deploy backup generators and restore full capacity within 40 days. A city the size of London may not be so lucky in the event of a catastrophic power failure resulting from enemy airstrikes.

I doubt Western intelligence agencies believed an outlay of over $200 billion could easily defeat the Russian occupation of Eastern Ukraine. As Julian Assange observed very astutely about the protracted Western intervention in Afghanistan, the aim was not military victory, but to transfer funds to the military industrial complex in a perpetual war against elusive enemies. Not only has the US Deep State armed and trained many of its official enemies to destabilise rival regimes, as it did with Mujahedeen in Afghanistan back in the 1980s, it needs enemies to justify its existence. “War is a Racket”, wrote Smedley D. Butler in 1935. The global elites need the spectres of Putin and Islamic Jihadists to scare the masses into submission. “If we don’t support Ukraine, defeat Houthi militias in the Red Sea or stand up to Iran, we will lose our cherished freedoms and prosperity”, cry the same neoliberals who oversaw the outsourcing of Western manufacturing to the Far East, the downsizing of the Western working classes and colluded with Big Tech to suppress all dissent to the socially and economically destructive lockdowns and biotechnological coercion of the 2020-23 pseudo-pandemic and are busy rolling out hate speech laws to ban all criticism of transgender ideology and ethnic cleansing.

The Western mainstream media has exploited the curious death of the fringe opposition Russian leader, Alexei Navalny, of a sudden cardiac arrest to beat the drums of war against Russia. Little do they care that Western support for Zelenksy's regime has led to the early deaths of over 400,000 Ukrainians and possibly over 270,000 Russian fatalities. We're being primed for World War Three, which this time may see the planned destruction of the Western World as we knew it.

Categories
All in the Mind Power Dynamics

Society on the Cliff Edge

Into the Levantine quagmire

Who could benefit most from civil unrest among rival factions who choose to believe radically divergent narratives?

For postmodern Zionists, Israel can never do any harm, only try desperately to defend Israel’s right to exist and to combat genocidal terrorists hiding among civilians who may also be responsible for aiding and abetting mass murder. Inevitably, Israeli propagandists seldom miss an opportunity to evoke the Nazi Holocaust and accuse their opponents of antisemitism. This narrative appeals not only to those who may have a vested interest in Israeli exceptionalism, but also to most mainstream politicians in North America and many in Western Europe. They choose to turn a blind eye to collateral damage caused by Israeli airstrikes and incursions and to overstress the crimes attributed to Hamas and their alleged sympathisers. Apparently, calling for a ceasefire will only empower Hamas. We must let the IDF surgically cleanse the Gaza Strip of all undesirables to save the Jewish homeland. Anything less would be antisemitic.

The trouble is many nationalists, social conservatives and Christians have fallen for this rhetoric too as they feel threatened by the growth of political Islam. Many talk of their country’s Judaeo-Christian culture. Alas they find themselves in bed with global Zionists, who have long advocated the phasing out of nation states everywhere, except Israel, promoted mass migration and alternatives to traditional two-parent families. Bibi Netanyahu may have courted Donald Trump and Eastern European nationalists like Viktor Orbán, but he also has close links with investment bankers and the upper echelons of the Biotech Industrial Complex, neither of whom believe in self-determination at any level of human organisation.

That’s not to say those on the other side of the toxic Israeli-Palestinian debate are any better. Some hardcore protesters blame the native working classes for crimes committed by the Israeli armed forces or for the repercussions of the Balfour Declaration and later Anglo-American military adventurism in the region. While we may observe Saudi Arabia has shifted its allegiances from the West to the BRICS block, it still expects the same degree of social conformity from its citizens with a strict enforcement of sharia law for the masses, but convenient exemptions for the aristocracy and wealthy ex-pat communities. As much as Muslim leaders preach solidarity and Islamic values, they’ve collaborated with international bankers and the Western military industrial complex. Until China brokered a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the British Royal Air Force was training Saudi Air Force pilots to bomb Northern Yemen with Eurofighter typhoons. As Mark Curtis documented so well in Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam, the West has often armed and funded proponents of Islamic fundamentalism as the best means of pacifying the populace and suppressing dissent. Islamic Pakistan is in the process of expelling 1.7 million Afghan refugees with barely a murmur of protest from Western NGOs. Some of us can still remember when the US and UK armed and trained the Mujahadeen, who later morphed into the Taliban, to fight the Soviet Union’s occupation. Now Saudi Arabia no longer depends on American and European money, they’re free to realign with Iran against Israel. If the Lebanese Hezbollah joins the conflict with Iranian supports, things could turn very nasty. As Scott Ritter and Douglas MacGregor have observed, given the Collective West’s current weakness in the closing stages of the war over Eastern Ukraine, Israel may well lose the war without an immediate ceasefire.

The Western ruling classes are no better than their Arab counterparts. They’re busy managing the staged downsizing of their once powerful economies with little regard to defending their self-determination or borders. The armed forces of all major Western countries are fully integrated into NATO, AUKUS and/or the EU, who over the last three decades have been mainly engaged in often counterproductive global policing operations. As the balance of power heads east and south with growing competition over strategic resources, populist leaders will seek retribution against the Old World Order or what the Neocons once called the New American Century, with the working classes paying the heaviest prices. You can bet American attitudes to foreign policy will change once Saudi Arabia imposes an oil embargo on Israel’s allies, which will drive up prices at the pump.

Delusions of Grandeur

Many self-defined British patriots, who have fallen out of favour with the UK’s globally minded metropolitan elites, have sided with the Israeli government. Some may genuinely believe they share a common struggle with Israel to defend their homeland against hostile Islamists who threaten the liberal enlightenment. Yet the most influential friends of Israel among British parliamentarians are by and large supportive of both mass immigration and multiculturalism with the mirage of gay nightclubs and casinos happily plying their trade alongside Mosques and Kebab shops. The stage is set for a turf war between rival factions of commoners identifying with different faiths. One adheres to British exceptionalism, long abandoned by the upper classes, and the other either to Islamism or some brand of international socialism, both subservient to global banksters.

Many feared the large National March for Palestine in London today would end in violence. In the event there were skirmishes with the police on the side-lines with one reported stabbing of a counter-protester holding up a sign reading “Hamas is Isis”. I fear both may have been agent provocateurs, for neither would have existed without Western military intervention and both may well have created, at least in part, by American and/or Israeli secret services.

How long can Western leaders keep up the pretence that Israel is only acting in self-defence. Emanuel Macron, the darling of global governance think tanks, has broken ranks and called for a ceasefire. Do they realise the game is up? Is this just a dress rehearsal for the next phase of destabilisation, as Sonia Poulton suggests?

Tribal Skirmishes

I've read conflicting reports of rightwing thugs attacking the police as they kept them apart from the main pro-ceasefire march and of pro-Palestine protestors harassing poppy sellers and throwing fireworks at the police. Rebel News circulated a video clip of a masked protestor claiming that "Hitler knew how to deal with the Jews". Was he an actor? Other clips on social media show Israelis, speaking in Hebrew with English subtitles, calling for the eradication of non-compliant Palestinians. Whatever happened to interethnic tolerance or the great melting pot of humanity? The mainstream media outlets still deny spreading such hatred. Pro-Israeli opinion-leaders like to claim only Hamas oppress Gaza residents, while pro-Palestinians claim many Jews both in the West and in Israel itself support their cause. Whichever way, it's hard to reason with people who believe the other side wants to exterminate them. Yet the ruling classes seem to get along fine. Netanyahu had no qualms about flying to Moscow last December to meet Vladimir Putin. Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, is happy to cultivate good relations with his counterparts in Russia, Saudi Arabia, the US and Europe. By contrast, on the ground rival groups blame either Islam or Zionism for their woes. To keep the peace, our local administrators will inevitably use hate-speech laws to clamp down on dissent as they preside over falling living standards.

Categories
All in the Mind Power Dynamics War Crimes

Shifting Narratives at the Crossroads of Civilisation

Things are about to turn very nasty

Protesters at Liverpool Street Station, London.

If you believe the opinion polls, Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party is poised to win by a country mile at the next general election. Recent by-election results would confirm this trend albeit with very low turnouts. Yet on the ground there is little enthusiasm for the prime-ministerial candidate that BlackRock’s Larry Fink has publicly endorsed. Meanwhile, parliament has become a sideshow. When Andrew Bridgen MP dared to raise the issue of excess deaths, citing voluminous data from various government agencies of increased mortality among working age adults since the multi-billion pound jab roll-out, only a handful of MPs dared to turn up while the soundproofed public gallery was full and the BBC saw fit to add captions contradicting the MP’s well-researched evidence. Sir Keir has admitted on camera to the BBC’s Emily Maitlis that he much prefers annual WEF gatherings with like-minded global influencers at Davos to parochial shouting matches at Westminster.

Some have accused Sir Keir of sitting on the fence on the key controversies of the day, but nothing could be further from the truth. He merely had to bide his time as Boris waffled over the first two and half years of the corona regime. He offered no opposition to the massive government overspend on covid containment policies. Indeed, under his stewardship Labour wanted to lock down sooner and harder. The lavishly funded Behavioural Insights Team did Labour’s dirty work for them by engendering a climate of helplessness and hyper-dependence on remote authorities, setting the stage for the next phase of the Great Reset. Unsurprisingly, the Labour-run fiefdom of Wales is running the first major trial of Universal Basic Income with funding from a penny-pinching Tory government.

What frightens me most about Keir Starmer is not his devotion to the institutions of technocratic control, but his staunch opposition to intellectual freedom. We heard hardly a whisper of opposition to the Orwellian Online Safety Bill from the Labour front bench and only murmurings of dissent from Corbynite left. If you can censor scientists who disagree with the WHO’s directives, you can censor peace activists who disagree with the Israeli government. If can censor opponents of mass migration because of their alleged racism, you can censor historians who disagree with official fact-checkers. If you rewrite history and send dissident historians to quarantine camps, you can literally get away with mass murder.

In the wake of the war over Gaza, Labour faces an enormous challenge. Large sections of its members and electoral base disagree profoundly with the leadership. Labour needs the block votes of Britain’s growing Muslim community and the wishful-thinking caring classes (teachers, nurses, social workers etc.). While Sir Keir may get away with his slavish parroting of the covid narrative, feelings run high about the mounting death toll in the Levant. Millions of Labour supporters can easily access Aljazeera with 24/7 coverage of Israeli war crimes and now distrust the British MSM more than ever, although for different reasons than social conservatives, libertarians and nationalists. Many have also questioned whether Hamas beheaded babies or whether the IDF’s heavy-handed response could have boosted the high civilian death toll in the horrific October 7th attacks on innocent Israelis. If the British telecommunications regulator, OfCom, attempted to ban Aljazeera in the same way as they silenced dissent over covid or banned RT, hundreds of thousands more would be out on the streets protesting and people will quickly find other means to access alternative news sources. That explains, at least in part, why the BBC has been more balanced on Palestine than it was on the covid regime.

One minute we all have to isolate and stay at least 2-metres apart, the next we all have to huddle into densely populated refugee camps sharing a toilet with hundreds of other people. One minute we ostracise the unvaccinated, the next we welcome undocumented refugees into our homes. One minute we welcome refugees from all over the world, the next we arrest them for protesting against Israeli war crimes.

If you believed the lockdowns were about public health, you might also believe Sir Keir Starmer wants peace in the Middle East. If he did, why would he align himself so closely and visibly with the Tony Blair Institute? As noted elsewhere the Biotech Industrial Complex is an extension of the better understood Military Industrial Complex. Unsurprisingly, both have close links with the Tony Blair Institute, the WEF, the White House and the Israeli government.

Infantile Pro-Palestinians

It is not just the Labour Party that’s split down the middle on Gaza, but the whole international woke movement. All of a sudden, I find myself sympathising with the likes of Greta Thunberg as her pro-Palestinian stance has given her a bad press in some quarters. However, George Soros’ openDemocracy foundation has long championed the Palestinian cause. His organisation has openly funded many pro-migration NGOs and open-borders campaign groups. Global technocrats can play both sides against each other. Tails you lose, and heads you score a pyrrhic victory. The Chinese Communist Party is realigning with the BRICS alliance and has given diplomatic support to the Palestinian side, but they have also recently wined and dined California’s lockdown king, Gavin Newsom. Of the big geopolitical powers only India, traditionally pro-Israeli, seems to be hedging its bets, while many pro-NATO European politicians, like Guy Verhofstadt better known for his rants against Putin and Brexit, are now distancing themselves from the US administration’s resolute opposition to a ceasefire. Why? Because they can feel the winds of global change. If Israel wins the battle of Gaza, it will do so at the expense of a weakened Collective West, morally obliged to accommodate millions more refugees. It would be a lose-lose situation for both Palestinians and ordinary Israelis (i.e. not the 20% with dual citizenship). An alternative outcome could bring Russia, Iran and China into the conflict and enforce a radical two-state solution based on the 1948 borders policed by international peacekeepers with the removal of all US military bases in the region. This scenario would not only humiliate the US/UK alliance with a heavy price in terms of human lives, it would inevitably lead to a mass exodus of Jewish Israelis. We might even see both sequences of events play out in quick succession. European workers will be expected to foot the reconstruction bill, but the Israeli and Arab elites will do just fine as will their friends in the arms and surveillance industries.

Who could benefit most from an intensification of community hostilities in cosmopolitan towns and cities across the Western World? With competing narratives about the causes of the Middle East conflict, I think we need more dialogue and fearless open debate, but alas our WEF-compliant politicians see things in terms of hate speech, which they get to define, and the parallel spectres of antisemitism and Islamophobia. Sir Keir Starmer has succeeded in annoying not only most Labour supporters sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, but also many staunch Zionists, by calling for urgent action against, wait for it, Islamophobia a day after making a speech against a ceasefire. In Sir Keir’s world, you may not insult the prophet Mohamed or complain about Pakistani grooming gangs in your neighbourhood, because that would be Islamophobic, but it’s fine to support Israeli airstrikes on refugee camps in Gaza, because otherwise you would deny Israel’s right to exist and that would be antisemitic. All we need is a handful of rogue agitators at a pro-Palestinian rally calling for an armed insurrection against Zionists and the Home Secretary has a pretext to ban all peaceful protests because they may incite violence. If the government can ban comedians for telling jokes about Gays for Palestine being thrown off rooftops, it can also ban protests against Israeli war crimes, lockdowns or gender-bending lessons in primary schools.

Are we being played?

Unlike Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir Starmer, Scottish First Minister, Humza Yousaf and Scottish Labour Leader, Anas Sarwar, both of Pakistani descent, have called for a ceasefire and, almost in the same breath, urged Scots to welcome Palestinian refugees. Yet only yesterday, both politicians seems perfectly aligned with the global establishment. The Scottish Government has no say in the UK's foreign and migration policies. Meanwhile, GB News and the Daily Mail, the bad boys of the British mainstream media, have a distinct pro-Israeli bias with their regular opinion leaders advocating a ban on Pro-Palestinian protests on Armistice Day (11th November). The Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, has also indicated that anti-terrorism and anti-hate-speech laws could outlaw any protests glorifying Hamas and, by extension, Hezbollah, which enjoys greater support in the wider Muslim world. This may lead to a standoff between two rival factions, both funded and manipulated by major global players. On the one hand we have the Israel-sympathising pro-American faction, allied with many British patriots, and on other we have a fragile alliance of the internationalist radical left, most Muslims and critically thinking peace activists. In a cruel twist of fate, many critical thinkers are now in the same camp as trendy lefties, while many social conservatives now welcoming a clampdown on freedom of expression in the name of antisemitism and honouring our forebears who helped defeat the Nazis. With organisers planning for as many as a million to attend next week's National March for Palestine in London coinciding with the traditional poppy-festooned Armistice Day memorial services, the stage is set for a showdown with the police. We may then only need a real or false flag terror attack, allegedly to revenge a mounting civilian death toll in Gaza, to justify martial law on the streets of London.

Categories
All in the Mind Computing Power Dynamics

Confessions of a Twitter Addict

I may be able to keep my New Year's resolution not to waste so much time trying to engage with other-minded people on Twitter. Following a short reply to a minor account on medical malpractice, my account has been suspended.

My appeal to Twitter's support team will probably fall on deaf ears. The woke enforcers of progressive technofascism do not do debate. They are only concerned with discussing how to roll out their vision of our Brave New World and how to deal with dissidents.

Censorship is real.

I would like to thank you for clarifying your opposition to democracy, which as you know cannot function without free speech and open debate on all key ethical and scientific issues of the day. Nobody has a monopoly on truth.

You claimed that I spread "misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19." In Mid 2021 I had a one-week suspension with the same justification for a reply to a user with a small following alluding to tried and tested therapeutics for viral infections currently known loosely as covid-19. The keywords that attract the attention of your censors are ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. We have over 60 years of data on the latter and around 30 years for the former. As I have stated in many other comments, these drugs should only be used at moderate doses in combination with other treatments. I have personally taken HCQ in Africa and am very familiar with its mild side effects (drowsiness). It may alleviate symptoms and reduce the likelihood of hospitalisation. As stated in the offending tweet, Ivermectin has been widely deployed in India, Japan and Iran to treat sars-cov-2 symptoms. There are numerous abstracts on PubMed discussing its efficacy:

As in most medical controversies, other studies have reached different conclusions, but I invite you to find evidence that early treatment with ivermectin at moderate doses can cause significant harm compared to "no treatment" followed by dangerous antiviral drugs such as remsdisivir accompanied by ventilation.

I suggest you censored my minor account for ideological reasons. The ball is in your court. If you persist in suspending accounts that counter the narrow covid narrative preferred by your partners in the biotech industry, then we can only conclude your organisation is opposed to liberal democracy and UNESCO’s Universal Declaration Code on Bioethetics and Human Rights.

If your platform cannot accommodate vigorous debate on such matters, its relevance will wane. It will be little more than a virtue-signalling echo chamber tolerating only controversies that do not challenge your biotech partners. One may debate whether the Earth is flat or whether Elvis Presley lives on the far side of the Moon, but one may not question the alleged "science" that regimes around the world exploit to justify growing authoritarianism.

You have recently purged many other accounts such as that of Dr Robert D Malone, the inventor of mRNA injections that you seem so keen not just to promote but to mandate as a condition for participation in society.

Prove me wrong and unsuspend my account. I welcome anyone to challenge my assertions. I have always been respectful and enjoy interacting with others who hold different views. Without open debate in the public sphere, our society will descend into authoritarianism.

Future historians will not treat tech giants like Twitter kindly if you persist with this attitude.

Categories
All in the Mind Power Dynamics

Another Twitter Suspension

The tech media giants started with easy high-profile targets, either genuine white supremacists, à la Red Ice, or sensationalist purveyors of American Exceptionalism and half-truths à la Infowars. They knew blocking these channels would only annoy a small subset of their customers. Few politicians would dare speak up in defence of these fringe outlets. Next, they targeted the likes of Stefan Molyneux, with nearly 1 million Youtube subscribers, former President Trump with over 50 million followers and last week the Corbett Report. I find this unsurprising, but also rather perverse. I never subscribed to Stefan Molyneux, but YouTube algorithms would keep suggesting his videos. Before I figured out how to disable auto-play, his videos would often follow other videos on the free speech theme by the likes of Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad. I long suspected Stefan was controlled opposition. His philosophical videos targeted a huge reservoir of dissent among the disenfranchised working classes. If you were not paying attention, you may have dismissed the core precept of his belief system: the fundamental importance of genetics in determining intelligence and success, both within and between racial groups. Such opinions have been rather unfashionable in the public discourse since the end of WW2. However, it’s now becoming glaringly obvious that the elites have public and private opinions on many controversies. Superficially, they pretend to side with the people but behind the scenes, they work to sow the seeds of new divisions and prepare the public psyche for future policy shifts.

Now the likes of Twitter are targeting anyone who challenges the official covid narrative, even those of us with a modest following in the lower thousands responding to someone with fewer than 30 followers. It seems you may hurl all sorts of gratuitous insults and spout some of the wildest scientifically illiterate theories on Twitter, as long as you do not challenge narratives of strategic importance. I’ve read messages supportive of paedophilia. Indeed, one message contained a preview image of a pornographic scene involving a child. I blocked its sender immediately. I admit this represents a grey area in the debate on the bounds of free speech, but I always stress intellectual freedom rather than absolute freedom of expression. I’ve lost count of the number of flat earthers and moon landing deniers active on social media, but their accounts never seem to get blocked.

The usual excuse is to protect community guidelines. You may naïvely think this is just about good social etiquette in the digital space. Some may have worried that such guidelines prevented open debate on issues such as unsustainable migratory flows or the promotion of transgenderism in schools for fear of offending vocal lobbies or vulnerable individuals. Now the assault on free speech has extended to anyone critical of the biotech industrial complex. The covid scare has unmasked our ruling classes, who still hide behind the façade of saving lives. Big Pharma lobbyists have been very active for many decades. Since the advent of social media, they’ve employed people to counteract any claims they do not like. I recall a long thread about the massive over-prescription of antidepressants. This could potentially offend people dependent on such psychoactive meds. By the same warped logic vegans may not highlight the horrors of slaughterhouses for fear of offending meat eaters. Initially the thread involved genuine users with a range of views. The next morning, I received a deluge of unfavourable replies with all the hallmarks of professional copywriters and was stupid enough to waste valuable time interacting with someone who could almost immediately respond to any first-hand evidence I gave with peer-reviewed reports on the safety and benefits of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (such as Prozac). These people always claim to be mental healthcare professionals. None of these tweets were flagged as abusive. I first encountered the Twitter thought police in 2019 about a misinterpreted sarcastic reply with the trigger word “kill” I had forgotten about. My comment paraphrased someone’s illogical statement (Do you want us to kill ourselves?). I gladly deleted it to restore my access. Lesson learned: avoid certain trigger words unless you make the context abundantly clear. Now what kind of gratuitous offence could earn me a one-week suspension? Threatening to kill someone? Overt racism? Denying that anyone has ever died as a result of covid-19? Nope. I merely claimed that numerous trials have proven ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are safe and effective treatments for the kind of respiratory illnesses associated with sars-cov-2. Whom exactly is this offending? I can only suspect that my interlocutor, going by the handle of Justin Time, works for the social media monitoring arm of the biotech industrial complex. They want to suppress any suggestion that the new experimental gene-therapy injections, marketed as covid-19 vaccines, do more harm than good. If alternative treatments are proven to be safe and effective, then the new injections will lose their emergency use authorisation and the whole case for authoritarian bio-security measures, with its lockdowns, mandatory masking, antisocial policing and digital health certificates, collapses.

Categories
All in the Mind Power Dynamics

Managing Public Opinion

The Strange Case of Twelve Islamophobic Cartoons

Over the last week the publication of a cartoon portraying the prophet Mohamed as a terrorist has dominated the Western European media sparking a phoney debate about freedom of expression from the very people who misled us about the recent invasion of Iraq. On one side we have the ultra-PC brigade preaching the virtues of tolerance and feigning sympathy with the Islamic community. On the other we have a motley crew of Guardian-reading libertarians, a few even prepared to support the publication of the offending cartoon, others just defending the theoretical right to do so. While it may be reasonably argued that propaganda and disinformation can have murderous consequences, static cartoons hardly constitute the main causes of ethno-religious intolerance. Long before the appearance of this sketch Fox News, Sky News, the BBC and CNN had through slightly more subtle means persuaded millions that we face a growing terrorist threat from Islamic extremists. The Danish cartoon, assuming its author hailed from that land, merely caricatured mainstream US and UK propaganda, daring to portray graphically what journalists had refrained from stating explicitly.

As rights cannot exist without responsibilities, freedom of expression cannot thrive without a culture of mutual respect devoid of intimidation and emotional blackmail. It is quite possible to challenge orthodoxy on any subject in a cool, calm and collected way. If we believe either moral or scientific right is on our side, then surely any position is intellectually admissible. Whether sexual orientation is genetically determined is a matter of science. Whether some sexual orientations may be deemed immoral are matters of ethics that tend to evolve gradually and belong to a set of shared values. The trouble is sometimes scientific truth can alter our ethical worldview and our moral outlook can prejudice our interpretation of science. If it could be proven that genes more common in one ethnic group were responsible for antisocial behaviour, racists could cite science to justify discrimination, while others may seize on such data to redefine antisocial behaviour.

Sadly we don't live in a hypothetical Voltairean debating society where all personal perspectives are afforded equal opportunities of expression. Never has so much psychosocial power been vested in so few media organisations, controlled inevitably by a handful of corporate and state entities. They have the power to set the agenda, swing moods and whip up fear, almost unparalleled in history. One can give a totally misleading account of a situation simply by omitting or circumventing a few key facts, e.g. journalists may discuss the Iraqi election results without considering how much, if any, control the winning candidates will have over their country's resources. Broadcasters may also suggest the culpability of a whole ethno-religious group simply by showing scenes of jubilation in the aftermath of a brutal terrorist attack. Pundits may set the limits of permissible debate by misrepresenting unacceptable views and defining them as extremist, fundamentalist, dangerous or hateful.

Thus we are faced with a false debate. Should we support the publication of undeniably offensive picture and denounce Islamic fundamentalists burning the embassies of Scandinavian countries or should we join the chorus of media pundits urging further restrictions on free speech to protect our tolerant multiracial society? British politicians and newspapers can then be portrayed as beacons of common sense and moderation by their refusal to bow to either concocted extreme.

Intellectual freedom has never been the same as abstract freedom of expression. All viable societies have some form of social etiquette. A Finn would do well to cover himself appropriately when bathing at a public pool on holiday in Egypt. Likewise an Egyptian tourist should not complain if confronted with mixed gender nudity in a Finnish sauna. When in Rome... The Danish cartoon may incite little more than a chuckle from a reader sympathetic with the official UK/US line. Most are exposed to countless hours of gore, soft porn and slapstick comedy on TV, most of which is either fallacious or deeply prejudiced. Few British teenagers have seen the offending images, but millions have been exposed to countless hours of gratuitous interactive violence and a constant diet of self-righteous pro-war propaganda. Many may believe US and UK troops represent a force for progress in the Middle East, but prefer not to reconcile their rulers' military strategy with hard economic facts. Overt expressions of hatred usually backfire. They convince nobody, but those who have already been thoroughly brainwashed through years of insidious conditioning. Suppose I wanted to spoil the reputation of a colleague. Merely engaging in childish pranks that others could easily discover would only work in a climate of contempt for the targeted person. A more rational, and dare I say, common approach would be to discretely spread rumours or set a bait for your rival to rise to, while pretending all along to be his friend.

A widespread misconception is that power elites hate specific subsets of the population, whether ethnic groups, religions, classes, genders or followers of alternative lifestyles. In truth their sole concern is the maintenance of power and the stability of the infrastructure that keeps it in place. Historically ruling classes have engendered loyalty through nationalism and religion, affording privileges to sections of the working class whose affiliation suits their medium-term needs best. While many in the armed forces may have been conditioned to believe they are fighting for God, Queen and Country, the real elite owes no allegiance to an omnipresent deity or the citizens of their land and only rely on heads of states as temporary figureheads often representing long-superseded notional entities whose emotive importance lives on in the collective psyche. The emergence of supranationalism, often called globalisation, has changed the rules. While millions of ordinary British citizens perished in the industrial revolution and conquest of new lands, they were nonetheless afforded privileged status over rival ethnicities. As the British population grew rapidly, their rulers could offer them plenty of new terrain to exploit and tap resources from the colonies. Subgroups with an incomplete allegiance to the great imperial project, such as the Irish, were often disadvantaged, but the ruling class merely exploited their subjects as vanguard forces in a long-term project of global domination.

So why should the elite care if we subscribe to traditional Islamic values or the liberal values of 1970s Western Europe? Do they mind if we worship pop idols or Mohamed or if we believe homosexuality is a positively cool genetic trait or a deviant behaviour? The truth is they don't care, but are quite happy to manipulate our strongly held views on these subjects to destabilise society and frighten us into accepting yet more control over our lives. The same forces that have consistently destabilised the Middle East to secure control of oil there, also manipulate our attitude to Islam, by promoting migration and pendantic political correctness, and simultaneously incite anti-Western feeling in much of Islamic world. The dark forces of the military-industrial complex that would dearly like to seize control of Iranian oil and gas reserves before China gets its greedy hands on too much of it must be rejoicing at scenes of enraged Middle Easterners burning the embassies of Scandinavian countries. First it deflects attention from the true centres of imperial power and second it focuses attention on a peripheral issue of purely emotional significance. Would you rather your neighbour make the odd rude joke about your lifestyle or greet you politely every day while plotting to have you evicted, made redundant and tortured?

People throughout the Islamic world have every right to boycott Western good to express their anger about Western imperialism, but why target Danish, Norwegian and French goods? Why not target US and UK banks?

This whole debacle is above all a media event. The original series of a dozen cartoons appeared in September 2005, but the story only exploded onto the international scene in January 2006. Surely some Muslims living in Denmark would have been alerted to its existence, but apparently initial reactions were muted. Just as Jack Straw can claim the moral high ground by voicing his disapproval of the cartoons, other pundits can join the chorus condemning flag-burning Islamic fundamentalists, with apparently nobody caring who controls resources in their countries. Presumably it's okay for London's Metropolitan Police to shoot dead a Brazilian electrician suspected of being an Islamic terrorist. It's fine to detain without evidence British citizens suspected of sympathising with alleged terrorists. It's also perfectly normal to spend hours every day immersed in a virtual world of gun battles. But if one breaks absurd rules of political correctness, whether defined as Islamophobia or homophobia, then one can only expect instant police action and mass demonstrations orchestrated by media barons.

Categories
All in the Mind

We Care about those who disagree

Samantha Stasy is a loyal Labour MP who genuinely cares about the physical, emotional and mental wellbeing of her constituents. Every week she holds a surgery providing local electors with a forum in which to air their grievances. "I believe it is essential to stay in touch with our electors, listen carefully and help them overcome their problems or refer them to professionals who can."

Samantha: "Hello, Mrs Contrary, I've read your e-mail, taken on board all your comments and fully sympathise with your predicament."

Mary Contrary: "Let me explain my disagreements with your government and your voting record."

Samantha: "I'd love to discuss the hard decisions that we as politicians have to take and fully respect your opinions, but I think I know where you're coming from. I joined CND as a student myself back in the 1980s, attended a few SWP meetings and went on my fair share of demos. At the time I genuinely believed in the righteousness of the cause, but with help and support over the years I've begun to see the error of my ways."

Mary Contrary: "Don't you think that voting for an invasion that has caused at least 100,000 deaths and was as any rational analyst would conclude motivated by oil is one mistake too far?"

Samantha: "I must say conspiracy theories are getting wilder these days. I voted to end a brutal dictatorship and allow the Iraqi people to benefit from the democracy we take for granted."

Mary Contrary: "What about oil?"

Samantha: "This seems to be a common theme among the antiwar brigade. Yes, we hope that the Iraqi oil industry can return to its previous levels of efficiency in line with international environmental regulations, and are putting in place an economic framework in which ordinary Iraqis can benefit from resources in their own land."

Mary Contrary: "Ms Stasy. I don't need to hear this nonsense. You know all oil proceeds pay off debts that Iraq built up in the 1980s and in practice go straight into the coffers of US and Israeli multinationals with lucrative reconstruction contracts."

Samantha pauses to take notes 'Patient may suffer from mild form of antisemitism, consider holocaust awarenesss training'.

Samantha: "The mind boggles. I'll have to check out the exact facts about which contractors are responsible for the reconstruction of Iraq, but I'd compare the current situation with post-war Germany. There we had to temporarily take over some German institutions in a process of denazification, essential in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Only last week a constituent whose grandparents perished in this genocide lamented the lack of awareness in the young population today of these unspeakable crimes against humanity."

Mary Contrary: "Don't you think it's cheap to use the Nazi holocaust to justify crimes committed by your government today? We oppose all tyrannical regimes!"

Samantha: "Oh well, that's what the pacifists said in the run-up to the Second World War. Had we listened to them, we'd enjoy none of the freedoms we take for granted today and you and I might not be talking in this surgery today!".

Mary Contrary: "Look if anyone is appeasing tyranny and genocide, it's not us! It's you guys who support the Bush Junta."

Samantha: "Mary, you seem to be getting paranoid about tyranny in this country. All we want is to work closely with our international partners, NGOs and businesses to bring about a fairer more caring society. We know it's tough and there's a lot of disinformation, conspiracy theories and hate speech on the Internet. Listen there's a group that meets locally for people like yourself who suffer from paranoid delusions. A good friend of mine, Dr Hamish Thotpol, runs the group. Members are encouraged to air their grievances and take part in constructive acts of benevolence, e.g. they organised a bus to the Make Poverty History concert in conjunction with Nokia. They also offer help and support with various therapeutic solutions to make you feel better about yourself!"

Mary Contrary: "Are you suggesting anyone who disagrees with your party line is mentally ill?"

Samantha: "No not at all, just that when we feel depressed about society and paranoid about all these hidden agendas from the likes of John Pilger, we might benefit from talking with professionals who can help us refocus our minds on the things that really matter, like our families, jobs and independent life."

Mary Contrary: "Stalinist b###h!"

Samantha: "I'm terribly sorry I couldn't help you."

Ms Stasy takes a note of Samantha's contact details and calls the local mental health monitoring unit. "Hello, one of my constituents is suffering from an acute form of Paranoid Conspiracy Theory Disorder and I feel she may benefit from a visit from a community psychiatric counsellor. I've recorded our conversation and will forward all correspondence."

"Oh, PCTD. Any hint of antisemitism" asked the friendly helpdesk assistant.

"She did mention Israel in a negative light" the Member of Parliament warned.

"Sounds ominous. And what about oil?" enquired the youthful psychiatric services support consultant, readjusting her headset in a Delhi-based call centre.

"Yes, she seems obsessed with the subject!" remarked Ms Stasy.

The call centre operator confidently uttered her well-rehearsed line "Thank you for passing on this information, Ms Stasy, we'll see what we can do to help."